Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

The case involves a minor, Andrew M., who tested positive for methadone at birth and was placed in foster care. His biological parents, S.M. and A.M., failed to reunify with him. Despite this, the juvenile court decided not to terminate the parents' parental rights, citing the parental-benefit exception, which applies if a parent shows that they maintained regular visitation with the child, the child has a substantial, positive, emotional attachment to the parents, and terminating that attachment would be detrimental to the child even considering the benefit of a new, adoptive home.The Superior Court of Orange County had previously ordered Andrew to be removed from parental custody and provided the parents with reunification services. However, the parents failed to reunify with Andrew and their services were terminated. The court then scheduled a permanency planning hearing.The Court of Appeal of the State of California Fourth Appellate District Division Three reviewed the case. Andrew's appointed appellate counsel argued that the juvenile court's decision not to terminate the parents' parental rights was an abuse of discretion. The Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA), although a respondent in this appeal, supported Andrew's counsel's position. The court agreed with Andrew's counsel and the SSA, concluding that the circumstances did not support the application of the parental-benefit exception. The court reversed the lower court's order and remanded the matter with instructions. View "In re Andrew M." on Justia Law

The case involves a civil dispute arising from an automobile collision. The plaintiff, David Audish, and the defendant, David Macias, were both found negligent in the operation of their vehicles, which resulted in a collision. The jury found that each party's negligence was a substantial factor in causing harm to Audish. Audish suffered damages amounting to $65,699.50, including past medical expenses, past non-economic losses, and future medical expenses. The jury assigned each party 50 percent of the responsibility for these losses.The case was initially filed in the Superior Court of San Diego County. The jury returned a special verdict finding both Audish and Macias negligent in the operation of their vehicles. The jury found that Audish had incurred past medical expenses, past non-economic losses, and would have future medical expenses, but did not award any damages for future non-economic losses. Audish moved for a partial new trial on the issue of damages, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's findings that he had no past or future lost earnings. The trial court denied the motion for a partial new trial and entered judgment in accordance with the verdict.The case was then appealed to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District Division One State of California. Audish argued that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence that he would have Medicare medical insurance at the age of 65. He also contended that the jury returned an impermissible compromise verdict and erred by failing to award him damages for future non-economic losses. The appellate court rejected these claims and affirmed the judgment of the lower court. The court found no error in the trial court's evidentiary rulings and concluded that the award of zero future non-economic damages was proper. The court also found that Audish had not established an impermissible compromise verdict. View "Audish v. Macias" on Justia Law

The case involves a woman who sought a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) against her former intimate partner, alleging he sexually assaulted her after their relationship had ended. The trial court granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) which barred the partner from possessing firearms and from attending the same church as the woman. At a later DVRO hearing, the trial court issued a DVRO, finding the man had sexually assaulted the petitioner and had committed subsequent acts of abuse by attending the same church as the petitioner and possessing a firearm, both in violation of the TRO.The man appealed, arguing that the trial court violated his procedural due process rights by conducting a direct examination of the petitioner, allowing her to testify about an incident of sexual assault not contained in the petition, admonishing his counsel about his method of questioning his client, and by depriving him of the opportunity to respond to a law enforcement firearms report that showed he owned a firearm.The Court of Appeal of the State of California Fourth Appellate District Division Two reviewed the case. The court found that the trial court's procedures were adequate and did not violate the man's procedural due process rights. The court noted that the trial court had given the man several opportunities to respond to the report that he was the registered owner of a firearm, and he refused to respond fully. The court also found that the trial court acted appropriately in conducting questioning, restricting itself to eliciting material facts with general questions and clarifying confusing and incomplete testimony. The court affirmed the protective order. View "Bailey v. Murray" on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute between neighbors over alleged violations of the Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC) related to landscaping and hedges. The plaintiffs, Thomas and Lisa Schwartz, claimed that their neighbors, Charles and Katyna Cohen, violated certain provisions of the LAMC by maintaining landscaping and hedges on their property that exceeded height limits and were non-compliant with the Residential Parkway Landscaping Guidelines. The Schwartzes sought redress for these alleged violations under Government Code section 36900, subdivision (a), which provides that a violation of a city ordinance may be redressed by civil action.The trial court sustained the Cohens' demurrer to the Schwartzes' first and fourth causes of action, but overruled the demurrer to the second and third causes of action, which were based on alleged violations of the LAMC. The trial court relied on a previous decision, Riley v. Hilton Hotels Corp., which held that anyone can sue to redress violations of municipal ordinances under section 36900. The Cohens petitioned for a writ of mandate to direct the trial court to vacate its order overruling their demurrer to the second and third causes of action and to enter an order sustaining their demurrer to these causes of action without leave to amend.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division Four, granted the Cohens' petition. The court disagreed with the interpretation of section 36900 in Riley, finding that the statute only grants city authorities, not private parties, the right to redress violations of municipal ordinances via either criminal prosecution or civil action. The court overruled Riley and held that section 36900 does not authorize private parties to bring civil suits to enforce local ordinances. The court clarified that its holding does not disturb caselaw recognizing that a defendant's violation of a local ordinance may be relevant to, or provide an element of, some other cause of action by a private party, such as nuisance or public nuisance. The court directed the trial court to vacate its order overruling the Cohens' demurrer to the second and third causes of action and to enter an order sustaining their demurrer to these causes of action without leave to amend. View "Cohen v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

The case involves Leah Lorch, who filed a lawsuit against Kia Motors America, Inc. The case was initially assigned to Judge Robert C. Longstreth for all purposes. However, due to Judge Longstreth's unavailability, the case was reassigned to Judge Timothy B. Taylor. Upon learning of this reassignment, Lorch's counsel filed a peremptory challenge against Judge Taylor under section 170.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, asserting that Judge Taylor was prejudiced against Lorch. However, Judge Taylor denied the challenge, ruling it was untimely under the master calendar rule. The trial proceeded, resulting in a defense verdict in favor of Kia Motors.The Superior Court of San Diego County denied Lorch's peremptory challenge, ruling it was untimely under the master calendar rule. The court also refused to stay the trial, and Judge Taylor immediately began a two-day jury trial, which resulted in a defense verdict and judgment in favor of Kia Motors. Lorch then filed a petition within the statutory 10-day period, contending that her peremptory challenge was timely because it was filed before the trial started. She sought to vacate Judge Taylor’s orders denying her section 170.6 challenge and contended that all of Judge Taylor’s subsequent orders, as well as the judgment, were void for lack of jurisdiction.The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District Division One State of California, held that Lorch’s section 170.6 challenge was timely filed before the commencement of the trial and rejected Kia’s laches argument. The court also concluded that the Superior Court of San Diego County's local rule, which purports to provide any superior court judge with the power to act as a master calendar department for purposes of assigning cases for trial, is inconsistent with section 170.6 and case law interpreting the statute. The court granted the petition with directions to vacate the void orders and judgment entered by Judge Taylor after denying the peremptory challenge. View "Lorch v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

The case revolves around a dispute between Southern California Edison Company (SCE) and 21st Century Insurance Company and other insurance companies (plaintiffs). The plaintiffs, who paid policyholders for losses resulting from a fire known as the Creek Fire, sued SCE under a subrogation theory to recover their payments. They alleged that an arc from SCE's electric powerlines caused the fire. During discovery, SCE withheld certain documents, asserting they were generated during an attorney-led internal investigation into the cause of the fire and were protected by attorney-client privilege and the attorney work product doctrine. The plaintiffs moved to compel the production of these documents, arguing that SCE's primary reason for conducting the investigation was to comply with state law requiring it to publicly report any involvement it had in causing the fire. The trial court agreed with the plaintiffs and compelled the production of the documents.The Court of Appeal of the State of California Second Appellate District Division One reviewed the case. The court concluded that the trial court's order improperly invaded the protection afforded by the attorney work product doctrine. Even where the dominant purpose of an attorney-directed internal investigation is to comply with a client's public reporting requirement, attorney work product generated in connection with gathering facts to assist counsel in advising the client on how to comply with that statutory or regulatory reporting requirement remains protected. As the plaintiffs did not show grounds for the production of their adversary's work product, the trial court erred in compelling its production. The court did not address whether the order also violated the attorney-client privilege. The court granted SCE's petition and directed the trial court to vacate its order and issue a new order denying the plaintiffs' motion to compel. View "Southern California Edison Co. v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

The case involves an appellant, G.G., who sought renewal of a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) against her former partner, G.S. The original DVRO was issued based on stalking. The appellant and respondent were former romantic partners and parents of two young children. The appellant testified that the respondent had repeatedly attempted to control her during their relationship, including planting a listening device in their home, taking her phone, and following her to work. After the relationship ended, the respondent continued to stalk the appellant, appearing at her home uninvited at least 70 times. The appellant filed a request for a DVRO, which was granted for a two-year period.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County initially issued the DVRO. After the DVRO was issued, the appellant's unwanted contact with the respondent was reduced, but not entirely eliminated. The appellant filed a request to renew the DVRO two weeks before its expiration, asking that the order be made permanent. The trial court found no evidence that the respondent had intentionally violated the DVRO and concluded that the appellant's fear, while genuine, was not reasonable. The request to renew the DVRO was denied.The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division Four. The court found that the trial court did not apply the correct legal standard in denying the renewal of the DVRO. The court held that a DVRO can be renewed based on the original facts, regardless of whether they involved physical or non-physical abuse, and renewal is not conditioned on the presence or absence of "ongoing" events. The court reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case for a new hearing, directing the trial court to reconsider the request for renewal consistent with the legal framework outlined in the decision. View "G.G. v. G.S." on Justia Law

This case involves a wrongful death claim against San Antonio Regional Hospital, brought by Joseph Musharbash, following the death of his adult son, Michael, who was treated for a traumatic brain injury at the hospital. Musharbash alleges that the hospital provided inadequate care by failing to properly evaluate Michael's injuries and undertake appropriate courses of action. Specifically, he claims that surgical intervention was performed too late and that the nursing staff failed to adequately monitor Michael, inform his doctors of his status, and advocate for the need for earlier surgical intervention.The hospital moved for summary judgment, arguing that Musharbash's only expert, Rhona Wang, a certified registered nurse anesthetist, lacked the requisite skill or experience to opine on the standard of care or causation elements of the claim. The trial court denied the hospital's motion for summary judgment, finding that Wang's declaration demonstrated triable issues about the standard of care and causation elements of Musharbash's claim. The hospital then petitioned for writ relief.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, granted the petition. The court found that Wang's qualifications did not establish that she had the specialized knowledge required to opine on the standard of care applicable to an intensive care unit neurosurgeon deciding whether a severe traumatic brain injury requires immediate surgical intervention, or whether that standard of care was breached. The court also found that Wang's declaration did not establish she was competent to opine on causation. As Wang was Musharbash's only proffered expert, her lack of competence to opine on the applicable standard of care and causation was fatal to his claim. The court directed the trial court to vacate its order denying the hospital's motion for summary judgment and to enter a new order granting the motion for summary judgment. View "San Antonio Regional Hospital v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

The case revolves around a lawsuit filed by an adult, John Doe D.Y., alleging childhood sexual assault while in elementary school. The plaintiff used fictitious names for all defendants and did not serve any at the time of filing, as required by section 340.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The case was assigned to Judge Katherine A. Bacal. In October 2023, the superior court allowed the plaintiff to serve and name Doe defendants under section 340.1. In November 2023, the plaintiff named Doe 1 as Defendant and Petitioner San Diego Unified School District. The District was served with the complaint in December 2023.The District made its first appearance in January 2024, seeking an automatic extension of time to demur and filed a peremptory challenge under section 170.6 against the judge. The superior court denied the challenge as "untimely" without further explanation. The District then filed a petition for a writ of mandate, arguing that it had timely filed the challenge within 15 days of its first appearance.The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District Division One, State of California, concluded that the superior court's review of the certificates under section 340.1 did not constitute a "determination of contested fact issues relating to the merits" under section 170.6(a)(2), and thus did not preclude a subsequent peremptory challenge. The court found that the superior court had erred in ruling the District's peremptory challenge as untimely. The court issued a peremptory writ of mandate directing the superior court to vacate its order denying the District's peremptory challenge, and to enter an order granting the challenge and reassigning the case to a different judge. View "San Diego Unified School Dist. v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between Laleh Taghvaei Mohammadijoo and Ramin Dadashian, who were married in Iran and later settled in California. The couple separated after 12 years of marriage. The main contention revolves around two missing assets: approximately $150,000 in community funds that Mohammadijoo secured through a home equity line of credit (HELOC) and transferred to Iran for her brother to manage, and approximately $170,000 of separate property proceeds that Dadashian inherited from his father’s real estate investments in Iran. Dadashian argued that Mohammadijoo had exclusive management and control over these assets post-separation, and thus, the burden of proof should be shifted to her to account for these missing assets.The trial court declined to shift the burden of proof to Mohammadijoo. It found that there was no credible evidence as to what happened to the funds. The court also sanctioned Mohammadijoo for violating her statutory disclosure obligations but did not charge her with the value of the missing assets.The Court of Appeal of the State of California First Appellate District Division Two reversed the judgment. The court held that the burden-shifting framework applies when one spouse solely controls and manages a relationship with a third party who directly oversees the management and investment of community funds post-separation. In such a case, the managing spouse must account for the missing assets. The court also extended this burden-shifting framework to missing separate property. Therefore, the trial court erred in declining to shift the burden of proof to Mohammadijoo regarding the missing assets. The case was remanded for a retrial of the community property issues. View "Marriage of Dadashian" on Justia Law